Talk:Seventeen Seventy, Queensland

Merge
I agree that the two articles should be merged. What is the official name of the town? Is it 1770, or Town of 1770? In either case, the naming convention suggests that it shoud be ***, Queensland. -- Adz 12:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, the two articles should be merged. As for the towns official name, Geoscience Australia suggests that Seventeen Seventy is the town's official name, used by the Gazetteer of Australia. Geoscience Australia QazPlm 05:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

When u travel around this area, the name actually used on traffic signs is "Town of 1770", and its also the name used in different travel guides, i never seen that its just "1770"... so it should be renamed, i guess --NPunkt (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Official name is in non-digit form
I believe that the town's offical name is "Town of Seventeen-Seventy". It was changed so that, on maps, its clearly a town (Seventeen-seventy) rather than a height marker for a mountain. (1770). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.3.64.1 (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the name of this article should be changed to "Seventeen Seventy", as per the official name - although Wikipedia searches for "1770" should redirect here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roar Menace (talk • contribs) 03:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 9 February 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. No agreement that dropping the ", Queensland" is an improved suggestion. Number  5  7  21:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

1770, Queensland → Seventeen Seventy, Queensland – The word form of the name is the official name assigned by the Queensland Government and can be confirmed by searching Queensland Place Names where the name Seventeen Seventy appears as both the town name (entry 44530) and the locality name (47286). The Queensland Government's principles on place naming explicitly states that numbers must be spelled out and uses Seventeen Seventy as an example of this. However, the use of "1770" is commonplace (it's shorter than the word form) as is "Town of 1770" but neither are official but appropriate redirects should be created. Kerry (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I've always seen it written as "1770" from my interstate view, but that's a perfectly sensible rationale, so support. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, since I was bold and moved it already for that very reason. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  16:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support move to Seventeen Seventy. The nom makes a good argument on words versus numbers, but "Queensland" is not needed per Australian naming conventions, and "Seventeen Seventy" already redirects here. Dohn joe (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support move to Seventeen Seventy, Queensland. Surely "Seventeen Seventy" would be most likely searched for when looking for 1770, and so Seventeen Seventy should be a dab page. Frickeg (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  14:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? I would doubt very much that many people looking for a year would type out the words for that year. Redirecting "Seventeen Seventy" away from this article would seem to be a step backwards for helping our readers get where they're trying to go.... Dohn joe (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also oppose a move to Seventeen Seventy alone: this would create confusion rather than take it away. The proposal makes it clear that it is in fact a place (especially significant considering the unusualness of this placename). The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But "Seventeen Seventy" has already redirected here for going on seven years, without anyone expressing confusion or asking for it to be moved. Doesn't that show that it is a good title here? Any confusion can be handled with a hat note at the top of the page. Dohn joe (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I doubt there's a vigorous group of enthusiasts surrounding 1770 the year and paying attention to that article, but it doesn't mean that that decision wouldn't make it more, not less ambiguous. More ambiguous titles is a Bad Thing. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But isn't it also a bad thing (perhaps a Worse Thing) if, say, 80% of people looking for "Seventeen Seventy" are looking for this page, and we send them to the year article instead? Dohn joe (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. For those worried about confusion with the year, I would point that almost no redirects exist from the written-out version of years: Nineteen thirty-two, Eighteen eighty-one, Seventeen seventy-one, etc. When written-out year titles do exist, they generally point somewhere besides the year: Nineteen Eighty-Four, etc. Try it yourself: go to the search box and type "seventeen [t], [f], [s], [e], [n]" and you'll see that no articles or redirects exist for eighteenth-century years - except for the Queensland place. So there's really no danger here of confusion, and it should make things easier for the readers to navigate where they're going. Dohn joe (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.